Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Attack On Iran Imminent Says Main Dutch Newspaper  
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Posted (6 years 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3189 times:

Calling on Dutch A.netters. Need to know if this translation is correct.

******
Dutch biggest newspaper Telegraaf writes today that the decision has been made by the US to attack Iran in the next few weeks. Unmanned aircraft are to be used in this attack. Potential targets are said to not only nuclear facilities but also military installations. The latter have been mapped with the help of the dutch secret service AIVD

Good sources have declared to the Telegraaf that the AIVD has been operating in Iran for the last few years with the purpose of the infiltration and sabotage of the weapons industry of the Iranian republic.
The operations is said to be "very successful" and is recently put to halt because of american plans for airattack. Information out of the AIVD operation have been shared with the CIA in the recent years according to the sources.

Iran propably works to get an atomic bomb and refuses to comply to western demands to stop enriching uranium. In june Israeli vice president Shaul Mofaz made the statement that an Israeli attack is inevitable if Iran continues its quest for atomic weapons.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/1...nval_op_Iran_verwacht__.html?p=2,1


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2918 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3163 times:

Bomb Iran ???

Why ??? So that they will later pour billions of dollars into terrorist groups who will launch attacks against American interests all over the world. Look at what the Libyans did to Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. And it took years to find out the real culprits. Not to mention an all out attack and invasion of Iran is completely OUT OF THE QUESTION RIGHT NOW...


Just my  twocents 



short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlineBlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

Unmanned Aircraft = Cruise Missiles its a lot Cheaper and will Save US Pilots being Paraded in-front of the Iranian TV Cameras.

At the Moment 3 US Carrier battle groups are in or near the Gulf so if the US did Knock out Iran's nuclear plants and start dismantling Iran's military machine and Iran did try and Close the Gulf to all shipping it would get very busy in the Straights of Hormuz.



 old 


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Added to thiis:

Russia to respond militarily to U.S. missile shield
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080827/116303880.html

MOSCOW, August 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said Russia will have to respond militarily to the deployment of elements of a U.S. missile shield in Central Europe.

The deal to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland was reached in mid-August, and followed the signing of an agreement on July 8 by the U.S. and Czech foreign ministries to place a U.S. radar in the Czech Republic.

"These missiles are close to our borders and constitute a threat to us," Medvedev said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television on Tuesday. "This will create additional tension and we will have to respond to it in some way, naturally using military means."

 bomb 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3133 times:



Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 3):
"These missiles are close to our borders and constitute a threat to us,"

I am still curious how anyone buys the premise that 10 interceptors - i.e. 30-year old Standard SM-2 Anti-Aircraft missiles with improved software that allows it to hit high-speed targets like incoming missile warheads, constitutes a threat to the Russian homeland.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4680 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

Guys, no stress, it's just 'De Telegraaf'. It's a newspaper version of every gossip magazine you can think of  Wink. It's easy to read, but for real news we go elsewhere.


For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3025 times:



Quoting JRadier (Reply 5):
Guys, no stress, it's just 'De Telegraaf'. It's a newspaper version of every gossip magazine you can think of Wink. It's easy to read, but for real news we go elsewhere.

I had a mixed-up feeling about this newspaper. It looked rather like the tabloid kind.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3018 times:



Quoting JRadier (Reply 5):
Guys, no stress, it's just 'De Telegraaf'. It's a newspaper version of every gossip magazine you can think of Wink. It's easy to read, but for real news we go elsewhere.

Hope you are correct. If the Georgia conspiracy story was half correct it would be a logical follow up. With a distinct possibility that Russia would be drawn in - again!


User currently offlineWhappeh From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2987 times:

It won't happen. Bet on it.


-Travel now, journey infinitely.
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3934 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2971 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
I am still curious how anyone buys the premise that 10 interceptors - i.e. 30-year old Standard SM-2 Anti-Aircraft missiles with improved software that allows it to hit high-speed targets like incoming missile warheads, constitutes a threat to the Russian homeland.

How can Russia be assured that that is *all* that's being installed there? Would the US take issue with Russian 'defensive' missiles being placed in Cuba?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2959 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 9):
How can Russia be assured that that is *all* that's being installed there?

Nobody, including the Russians, has claimed that anything more substantial than the suped-up Surface-to-Air missiles. Which are defensive by their very nature. These are not ICBMs.

Quoting Moo (Reply 9):
Would the US take issue with Russian 'defensive' missiles being placed in Cuba?

Cuba has russian SAMs. SA-6/-7/-8/-9/-13/-14/-16s, to be exact, plus whatever they have on their naval assets. Big deal. We're not planning an invasion of cuba.

The question remains: Why is Russia getting their panties in a twist over defensive systems, if they have no offensive plans themselves?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2954 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 9):
Would the US take issue with Russian 'defensive' missiles being placed in Cuba?

If Russia were to set up a missile defense system in Cuba, you bet we would do something about it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10):
Cuba has russian SAMs.

There is a difference between SAMs and a missile defense system, even if that missile defense system is made up of modified SAMs.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2949 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
There is a difference between SAMs and a missile defense system, even if that missile defense system is made up of modified SAMs.

What is the difference, exactly?

Keep in mind that these ABMs are good for one thing only - the interception of ICBMs and IRBMs. They are useless against cruise missiles, fighter aircraft, and other conventional targets. And the only way they can hurt anyone on the ground is by falling on your head after running out of fuel.

As long as the US has no plans to launch ICBMs or IRBMs at Cuba, why should we care?

And conversely (again) if Russia has no plans against Poland, why should they care?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineJohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 923 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2934 times:



Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
Main Dutch Newspaper



Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 6):
I had a mixed-up feeling about this newspaper. It looked rather like the tabloid kind.

Which is it?


User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4680 posts, RR: 50
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2931 times:



Quoting Johns624 (Reply 13):
Which is it?

Both, I believe it's the newspaper with the highest circulation but it is kind of tabloit-ish.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2880 times:



Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter):
Attack On Iran Imminent Says Main Dutch Newspaper

 sarcastic  Not this again. Instead of continually posting excerpts from dodgy sources, how about making a bet?


User currently offlineBlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2874 times:

Russia.

Hmm Lets Se the New guy in Charge was hand picked by Prime Minister / then President Putin for the Job of President and now that Putin is Prime Minister who is really in Charge of Russia.

Medvedev.

I dont think so it"s more like Putin is in Charge doing the old Puppet mater game with him pulling the Strings and telling Medvedev what to say and how to say it.

12 Surface to Air Missiles pose Zero Danger to Russia but the Russians are annoyed that NATO is surrounding her with former Warsaw Pact nations who are now NATO or soon to be NATO Members and Russia do-sent like it So will kick off at the slightest little thing.

The Defence Shield isnt against Russia but against Rogue nations who mite some day get hold of a Long Range ICBM or a Medium IMRBM which can hit NATO countries with a WMD but the Russians would rather it isnt based in Poland why is simple as they see Poland as part of its sphere of influence and now find they are no-longer welcome in Poland or any where else.

Russia is now trying to re-arm and turn her self back into a super power which will take a lot of time and a huge amount of money.

The Quickest way to be a super power is to scare the Shite out of your neighbours by making lots of noise and waving a big Sword at the nearest people to you, It makes the Russian prime minister and president look big in the eyes of the Russian people which is the most important thing to the Russian leader ship.

As for Iran the leadership of Iran is really out there they think they can scare the rest of the world into sub-mission but scaring the Military of a super power into running or sailing away is not an option when that nation gets a huge amount of its oil from the Persian gulf.

Iran is willing and even able to try and force its neighbours into joining Iran weather they want to or not, If Iran gets the bomb it would get very messy for all of us in the west so the sooner the threat is removed the better for all of us.

The real people of Iran are fed up with all the restrictions and threats against the west by the Leadership but with the current way things are governed in Iran they can do nothing to stop the Leadership from forcing them into a war that they can not hope to win.




 old 


User currently offlineCainanuk From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2820 times:

I am still curious how anyone buys the premise that 10 interceptors - i.e. 30-year old Standard SM-2 Anti-Aircraft missiles with improved software that allows it to hit high-speed targets like incoming missile warheads, constitutes a threat to the Russian homeland......


Put the shoe on the other foot and say Russia put a missile shield for "defensive purposes" in Cuba and see how you would feel... Oh that's right, I newarly forgot, we had something like that once what was it called again? Oh yeah, the CUBAN MISSILE CRISES... aka 15 minutes to armageddon.



Cainan Cornelius
User currently offlineSv7887 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1025 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2811 times:



Quoting Cainanuk (Reply 17):
I am still curious how anyone buys the premise that 10 interceptors - i.e. 30-year old Standard SM-2 Anti-Aircraft missiles with improved software that allows it to hit high-speed targets like incoming missile warheads, constitutes a threat to the Russian homeland......


Put the shoe on the other foot and say Russia put a missile shield for "defensive purposes" in Cuba and see how you would feel... Oh that's right, I newarly forgot, we had something like that once what was it called again? Oh yeah, the CUBAN MISSILE CRISES... aka 15 minutes to armageddon.

You're missing one very important thing...The Cuban Missiles had Nuke Warheads..These are interceptors pure and simple. 10 interceptors do NOTHING to stop Moscow's Nuclear ICBMs, bombers, and Missile Submarines. It's pure posturing..


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8840 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2766 times:



Quoting Cainanuk (Reply 17):
Put the shoe on the other foot and say Russia put a missile shield for "defensive purposes" in Cuba and see how you would feel... Oh that's right, I newarly forgot, we had something like that once what was it called again? Oh yeah, the CUBAN MISSILE CRISES... aka 15 minutes to armageddon.

If Russia put similar missiles in Cuba, I don't think the U.S. would have any problem with it. They would not be a threat to anyone.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26450 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2762 times:



Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 16):

The real people of Iran are fed up with all the restrictions and threats against the west by the Leadership but with the current way things are governed in Iran they can do nothing to stop the Leadership from forcing them into a war that they can not hope to win.

The Iranian people have proven in the past that they can rise up and overthrow a dictatorship. The reason they don't now is because they don't want to be caught in a state of flux when an invasion happens. That happened in 1980 and hundreds of thousands of Iranians died.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineHowSwedeitis From Sweden, joined Jul 2007, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2757 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

*Sigh* I really hope none of this is true... Iraq was fractured, and barely resourseful when the US invaded. Iran? Shit, they have a massive military. The US would need much more than the old "Coalition of the Willing!" They'd need major assistance. The only thing I can maybe think of would be to pull an Israeli-style air raid. They did the same thing to Syria not too long ago. Now the question is, what would Iran do after such a strike? Would they invade a neigbor (say, Iraq?) Would they do as the Syrians, and do nothing? Or, (most dreadfully) would they launch a series of missles and possible war heads at Israel or any other Western-friendly nation in the area? All of this must be considered carefully when talking about military action against Iran.

-HSII



Heja Sverige!!
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2706 times:



Quoting HowSwedeitis (Reply 21):
Now the question is, what would Iran do after such a strike? Would they invade a neigbor (say, Iraq?) Would they do as the Syrians, and do nothing? Or, (most dreadfully) would they launch a series of missles and possible war heads at Israel or any other Western-friendly nation in the area?

Or simply ensure that terrorist activities are stepped up. I doubt the US would risk that. In the eyes of many Americans, Sept. 11th was unprovoked. Resumption of terror activity against US citizens as a direct consequence of an attack on Iran would cripple the government's rating at home.

Quoting HowSwedeitis (Reply 21):
All of this must be considered carefully when talking about military action against Iran.

 checkmark  Some people are confusing a half-hearted wish, born of frustration, with a serious intention to spark a major conflagration.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3934 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2686 times:



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 18):

You're missing one very important thing...The Cuban Missiles had Nuke Warheads..These are interceptors pure and simple. 10 interceptors do NOTHING to stop Moscow's Nuclear ICBMs, bombers, and Missile Submarines. It's pure posturing..

And neither the US nor Russia has the capability to produce nuclear tipped cruise missiles...  Yeah sure

Thats the thing here, Russia has no way of being 100% certain just *what* is being installed - its not like they can pop over whenever they want and wander around the facility to make sure, now is it?

Or are you suggesting they should take another countries word at face value?


User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5697 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2680 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 23):
its not like they can pop over whenever they want and wander around the facility to make sure, now is it?

Regular inspections to bothe the missile site as well as the radar facility are of course part of the arrangement with Russians. The interceptors pose absolutely no threat to their nuclear offensive/retaliatory capability and even the most trigger-happy Russian top brass who have been hurling threats of nuclear armaggeddon the past two years or so know that, this is all for domestic consumption to create favorable conditions for Putin to return to the old Evil Empire ways of doing things.


25 Moo : And just how invasive are those inspections allowed to be? Unconditional? No areas off limits? Nowhere anything can be hidden? Highly unlikely. Yeah,
26 Dreadnought : Moo, GW Bush offered to give the Russians, free of charge, the technology and designs needed for Russia to build their own Missile Defence System. Th
27 Post contains links Baroque : I can just imagine the US reaction if the UN inspection terms for Iraq were applied. They might even learn how to say nyet. Washington has tried to e
28 Post contains links Dreadnought : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/wo...pe/21missile.html?pagewanted=print
29 Baroque : The package includes American offers to cooperate on developing defense technology and to share intelligence about common threats, as well as to perm
30 Moo : Well, firstly that doesn't solve this little issue - if Russia had the technology there still wouldn't be any way to be 100% sure just what is being
31 Post contains links MadameConcorde : Moscow halts Iran cooperation with US, will complete Bushehr reactor DEBKAfile Special Report August 30, 2008, 7:32 PM (GMT+02:00) The Georgia quarrel
32 AF340 : MadameConcorde, what's with all these dodgy new sources? Debka is known as a source of conspiracy theories... Show me a real article. Liam
33 BlackProjects : Relax the end of the World isnt due till December 2012 this will all blow over and Calm down. Or so the Fruits keep saying.
34 Post contains links MD11Engineer : Of course. the Iranian government supports Russias claim for recognising the independence of South Ossetia and Abchasia. In turn Iran hopes to be acc
35 Dougloid : That's really the bottom line. It's not aimed at the Russians but they're milking it for all it's worth with the useful idiots of the region. If the
36 11Bravo : What nefarious items are you suggesting might "really" be deployed at the Polish site? You seem to be suggesting that the US intends to base somethin
37 HowSwedeitis : That's right! December 21st 2012! I think that this is what the Russians are assuming. Post Soviet breakdown, many Russians felt humiliated. Their ec
38 IliriBDL : Question for MadameConcorde, do you support the US and the West or are you supporting Russia and their allies? At least to me it seems that with all t
39 JetsGo : Are you kidding? That grandma is about as anti-American as they come. It's sickening.
40 Mir : Your regular SAM is there to stop a conventional tactical air attack. A missile defense system is there to stop a strategic nuclear attack, and elimi
41 David L : Let me start by saying that I don't agree with what Russia is doing in Georgia and I don't trust Putin. However, I don't agree with the way Georgia be
42 L410Turbolet : What's so difficult to understand about Polish/Czech effort to seek additional security against Russian bullying? The striking similarity between Rus
43 NAV20 : My own opinion is that it was primarily the 'balance' of NATO and Russian nuclear weapons that prevented the Cold War from becoming a hot one some ti
44 Baroque : I am glad it is not just me who has a problem working out why Iran would program its missels to fly by Poland on their way. Delaying the apogee that
45 IliriBDL : It seems that way from every post that I've read. Wonder if she has ever visited the US.
46 Moo : No, I'm suggesting there is no way, short of full unfettered access to the site day or night, to convince someone otherwise. You really think the gam
47 Post contains links MadameConcorde : I am not supporting -or trusting- either. Bushco is evil, so is Putin. However it is not good to ignore the facts. Russia threatens to supply Iran wi
48 IliriBDL : I will not take anything seriously from you if you put Bush in the same league as Putin. No one is ignoring facts, it just seems that you're bringing
49 HowSwedeitis : To be fair, you do have a bit of a conflict of interest there... However, with Putin's death-grip on democracy in Russia, I have to agree that Bush c
50 Post contains links Dougloid : My ranges were a wee bit off....my guess is the stuff's already deployed somewhere in the middle east. Does anyone think that the Saudis, for example
51 Post contains links NAV20 : What sort of 'stuff''? As I explained above, the first requirement for launching a nuclear attack on a nuclear power is a defence against retaliation
52 Baroque : " target=_blank>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/m...sile/ What has that got to do with intent. I do not know what they intend and neither do you.
53 Mir : Because short- and intermediate-range missiles are the most deadly of all. They give much less warning and are much harder to stop. A missile launche
54 Post contains links and images MadameConcorde : Aug 29, 2008 11:13 | Updated Aug 30, 2008 16:50 Report: Israel won't allow a nuclear Iran By JPOST.COM STAFF Israel will not allow Iran to attain nuc
55 NAV20 : Just as a matter of interest, I looked up the Russian 'S-300' anti-aircraft system. Turns out that it doesn't require massive silos and radar station
56 Dougloid : I think you need to start paying closer attention to Mr. Ahmadinejad's public statements, Alan. He's pretty clear.
57 Post contains links Baroque : 1. Iranian rhetoric is different from western rhetoric. 2. What he intends to do is far from clear. 3. He cannot do anything much, that depends on th
58 NAV20 : Robert, you're perfectly capable of 'lateral thinking' yourself; and you usually exhibit a great sense of humour. How come you seem lately to be filt
59 Post contains links MadameConcorde : Counter Terrorism Bureau tells Israelis: Leave Sinai immediately By Haaretz Service http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1018269.html Olmert: We must p
60 HapppyLandings : I still do not appreciate the USA messing with the Russians through my home country, it is blatant disrespect and fully taking advantage of the moron
61 Johns624 : Geez, HappyLandings, you don't seem to think much of your fellow former countrymen. You sound like you think they are just a bunch of idiot simpleton
62 HapppyLandings : Polish jokes do not bother me, all in good fun. And I think VERY highly of my fellow former country men, just not very highly of the current governme
63 Johns624 : Madame Concorde- In Post #1 you posted a news story that said the US was going to attack Iran "imminently". Then in #59, it's the Israelis. Make up yo
64 Post contains links MadameConcorde : No mainstream media, the Murdoch et al. Time is relative. The matter is not if but when. http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north648.html Both potentia
65 Johns624 : Another non-source. When anyone refers to helicopter assault ships as aircraft carriers, they lose all credence with me. Who is Lew Rockwell anyways?
66 David L : There's a huge difference. One definitely isn't going to happen any time soon and the other has been a possibility for many years. Nothing new here.
67 NAV20 : Not so nowadays, Johns624. The logistics and planning processes are far more complicated lately. If you recall, Gulf War One was the best part of a y
68 David L : These predictions of a US attack on Iran, based on "privileged information" (i.e. dodgy websites), have been going on for much, much longer than "a w
69 11Bravo : Several years is my recollection. I suppose that could be considered "Imminent" on some kind of pseudo-gelogical scale. If the US or Israel bombs the
70 Johns624 : Here's what I got from dictionary.com Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source im·mi·nent Audio Help /ˈɪmənənt/ Pronunciation Key -
71 Post contains links NAV20 : Fiar enough, Johns624 - but we are, after all, only discussing the word chosen by the thread-starter. The actual word used in the headline is 'verwac
72 Post contains links StasisLAX : And especially an Iranian nuclear program that Comrade Putin has very publicly supported. "Mr Putin told journalists that "peaceful nuclear activitie
73 David L : There's a much more likely explanation: a show of force to turn the pressure up on Iran. But that doesn't make such dramatic headlines for sensationa
74 Baroque : The trouble is, David, that some of us are remembering what followed the show of force towards Iraq, and all the while PMs Blair and Howard were assu
75 NAV20 : But 'turn the pressure up on Iran' to achieve what, DavidL? There's no evidence that Iran is developing nukes - even El Baradei (who would know, if a
76 David L : I don't think there was much doubt about the intent to attack Iraq and Afghanistan if certain conditions did not prevail. But those forays gave all c
77 BlackProjects : Seems the Israeli Secret Service are looking at Snatching the Iranian President or so a Former member has said. Methinks Iran's president mite conside
78 NAV20 : With respect, David L, the 'evidence' appears to be both factual and ominous. No less that three US carrier battle groups, a tactical support group,
79 BlackProjects : If a war Breaks out in the Gulf it will last a couple of weeks and then Iran will be a different country. Some parts of it mite Glow in the dark for a
80 David L : The evidence that there is a show of force in the Gulf? Does anyone disgaree with that? That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about evid
81 NAV20 : That's exactly what may be happening, David L. Except that I think that Israel may do the actual 'attacking,' with US intelligence and logistical sup
82 David L : That is not the allegation. So why, exactly, is there any need for the US to attack Iran at this stage? Doesn't it make sense to apply pressure first
83 Dougloid : I think you're absolutely correct about that.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Nuke Attack On Iran? posted Sat Apr 8 2006 18:06:49 by TWISTEDWHISPER
Iran Working On Nuclear Bomb, Says Rumsfeld posted Sun Jan 16 2005 02:13:01 by Rsmith6621a
Details Emerge Re:IDF Attack On Syria Nuclear Site posted Sat Oct 13 2007 21:41:45 by RJpieces
Guardian: US Intelligence On Iran Doesn't Stand Up posted Sat Feb 24 2007 23:11:31 by Joni
Best Analysis Of US/Israeli Options On Iran posted Thu Feb 1 2007 04:04:19 by RJpieces
Article On Iran And The Israel Lobby posted Mon Jan 29 2007 17:12:25 by Cba
Israel Plans Nuclear Strike On Iran posted Sun Jan 7 2007 03:24:24 by NWDC10
NFL: Dolphins Left On Beach, Saban Says Roll Tide! posted Wed Jan 3 2007 18:58:29 by CasInterest
Annan Bows Out Of UN With Attack On Bush posted Tue Dec 12 2006 18:02:51 by Joni
Camera Records Attack On Fox News Reporter posted Fri Sep 8 2006 02:06:39 by BoeingFever777